The biggest story of the Canucks win over the Blue Jackets last night wasn’t Cody Hodgson’s first goal of the season, the come from behind victory in the third period, or Cory Schneider’s crucial save on a penalty shot. Instead, most fans and the media focused in on a two-minute minor for boarding in the second period and the subsequent response from the Canucks.

As seen in the video above, Marc Methot finished his check on Henrik Sedin while Henrik had his back turned and was facing the boards. Henrik left the ice favouring and shaking out his right knee, but played a regular shift on the ensuing powerplay before leaving for the dressing room briefly to get it checked out. He returned to play the rest of the game and tallied an assist on Burrows’ game winning goal.

While there has been talk about a suspension, Bob McKenzie reported on the Team 1040 this morning that there would be no further action taken by the league.

So the story isn’t about an injury, or another suspension, or the physical play of the Blue Jackets shutting down the Sedins. The story is that the Canucks did not respond to the hit, reminding many of the liberties taken in the Stanley Cup Final by the Boston Bruins — in particular, Brad Marchand’s series of gloved punches to Daniel Sedin that continues to haunt Canuck fans. The concern, then, is that the Canucks did not show enough pushback to dissuade teams from targeting the Sedins.

So what response should the Canucks have had? What more could have been done?

The players on the ice at the time of the hit were Daniel Sedin, Alex Burrows, Sami Salo, Alex Edler, and, of course, Henrik Sedin. Which of those players is going to drop the gloves with Methot? The most obvious person would be Burrows, who fought later in the game, and, as you can see in the video, attempts to engage with Methot before being immediately separated by the linesman. The issue is that the five players on the ice were the Canucks top powerplay unit by the end of the game; with a two and possible five-minute powerplay coming, the Canucks want all five of those players on the ice, not sitting in the penalty box.

So a fight immediately after the hit would have been ideal response, as Jay Rosehill did to Jody Shelley, for instance, but it would have worked against the Canucks, who wanted to take the lead in a tight game. Which of those five players would you replace with a fighter? Would you rather have Aaron Volpatti or Dale Weise on the top line with the Sedins? The answer had better be no.

Since a fight immediately after the hit was prevented by the linesman and would have been counter to the effectiveness of the powerplay, a fight later on would have to suffice. But Methot wasn’t up for it; he was challenged by Kevin Bieksa later in the game, but refused to fight. Volpatti was itching to take him on too, but was seldom able to get on the ice opposite Methot and was refused when he was.

At what point does this stop being about the lack of toughness on the Canucks’ roster and becomes about the lack of accountability from Marc Methot? The Canucks do not lack in toughness, whether the team toughness of being able to take a hit to make a play or the traditional toughness associated with fighting. Volpatti one-punched Brad Winchester in the pre-season, while Dale Weise is no stranger to dropping the gloves. Other players on the Canucks have had their fair share of fights in their careers, with Kevin Bieksa likely being the most feared combatant amongst them.

But if your opponent refuses to fight, what can be done? The alternative would be to attack Methot in the same way J-F Jacques went after Mike Duco in the pre-season, a move that earned Jacques a suspension and derision from the media and fans.

“There were people who went over to him,” said Bieksa after the game, “And after the two of us challenged him, he said ‘no’ to us. You either take an instigator on him or you play the game. You have to pick your spots. We decided to do that.”

Volpatti told the same story: “If he’s not going to drop the gloves, you can’t take a penalty. It’s part of our job to try to keep other guys honest. He knows that we didn’t like the hit and it’s a long season.”

The Canucks chose to instead punish the Blue Jackets on the scoreboard and leave any retribution or physical response to a later date. And, on a later powerplay, they did just that, as Alex Burrows stuffed in his own rebound halfway through the third period. That’s why the comparison to the Stanley Cup Final doesn’t add up. The Canucks didn’t lose that series because of a lack of physical response to the treatment of the Sedins; they lost that series because they couldn’t score on Tim Thomas, who Steve Mason is not.

The Canucks were 2-for-33 on the powerplay in the Stanley Cup Final. Their regular season zen tactic of responding to cheap shots with goals withered against the phenomenal goaltending of Tim Thomas. Against the Blue Jackets, however, the powerplay paid off, winning the Canucks the game.

There is some concern that teams will continue to target the Sedins with cheap shots and physical play, but if the Canucks continue their powerplay dominance from last season, other teams won’t be able to afford to take penalties and the cheap shots will disappear. The answer isn’t to sign a goon or put a fourth liner on the Sedins’ wing. The Canucks will respond physically when necessary and when possible, but will respond on the powerplay far more often.

50 comments

r

October 11, 2011

thank you so much for this article. that is all!

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Frank

October 11, 2011

How do you respond? Score on the powerplay. Simple as that.

This isn’t pond hockey, Slapshot, or a beer league. No need for boneheaded goon responses that will ultimately put you a man down, put you under the scrutiny of the refs, lead to further fines or suspensions. It’s 2011 not 1975. The game has changed to benefit skill and discipline.

The Canucks got pushed around in the final because they failed to capitalize on powerplays. A contrast from the Sharks series. I don’t care who you play, when you don’t score on the power play it gives any opponent confidence to make a bigger physical push back. They no longer have to worry about costing their team goals by taking a run at a player.

And enough with the Bruins talk. The Canucks lost. Now, new season.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

John in Marpole

October 11, 2011

My head agrees with you 100%. My gut, on the other hand, churns at watching what looks like unanswered challenges by Canuck opponents. And that little voice that talks to me when nobody is around suggests that if the PP fails at some point in the playoffs next spring as it did this past June, the result would be similar.

Detroit wasn’t faced with similar issues during their run at the top of the NHL. As a team, the Wings played a more physical game than do the Canucks, who rely upon domination by skill to win – not that the Wings weren’t similarly skilled.

Perhaps if Vancouver added a little more physical involvement to their game, something I think the defense is capable of doing, the impression of the team being soft would be countered and there would be no need to rely upon fisticuffs to address liberties taken against the Sedins.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

R. Craig

October 11, 2011

Until the Canucks are physically feared by other teams, their quest for the Cup will be in vain. They need to lay a beating on someone like Dave Bolland that is so severe that if he sees a Sedin, or hears someone speaking Swedish, or drives by an Ikea store, he curls into a fetal position and whimpers for his Mummy.

They only have to do it once, and the other teams will not only leave the Sedins alone, they will leave all of their top players alone. Yes, it will result in a penalty and perhaps a game misconduct, but it is what is required.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

Penalty, game misconduct, fine, suspension…and that’s just to start. What happens when the other team responds not with fear but by dressing a cheap shotting, dirty goon who takes even more runs at the Sedins as retaliation for the severe beating you just laid on one of their players? This idea that you just need to beat up one player and everything will be okay is a gross misunderstanding of the situation.

Look, if the guy’s willing to drop the gloves, you fight him. If he doesn’t, you keep an eye on him and finish every check, hack every calf, and give him an earful of abuse all over the ice until he does. Until then, you score on every fourth powerplay and dissuade your opponents from taking penalties.

Laying an unnecessary beating on someone does nothing. Having someone that can immediately respond does. People were less likely to go after Gretzky if McSorley was on the ice. Bure had less to fear if Odjick was on the ice. The issue is, players who can reliably skate on a top line and also fight are exceedingly rare. Odjick and McSorley were on the edge of that, aided by how damn good Gretzky and Bure were and could create offense individually. The Sedins create offense with their teammates. Having Volpatti or Weise or Oreskovich or some similar player on their line would make them less effective and would weaken the Canucks as a whole.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

jub_al

October 11, 2011

AMEN TO THAT ARTICLE!

When will the band-wagoners stop being such hypocrites and begin to think about the bigger picture when they accuse the Canucks of not being tough enough?

What happens when, hypothetically, Burrows breaks a hand while fighting or gets penalized for retaliation and we give up a goal at a crucial moment in the game? then Burrows is the scapegoat for taking a “dumb penalty” and costing the team the game.. or the PK is not good enough.. the Canucks can’t win this argument… And you know what? They’re men, they can handle criticism, and i’m sure they won’t lose sleep over being labled as the most hated team, or the softest team etc by the rest of the world…

but as a Canuck fan, the biggest gripe i have is that much of this negativity and lack of faith in the Canucks seems to be coming from ignorant Vancouverites and so-called fans who are turning against the team and getting angry and giving up on them at every tiny mistake or setback the Canucks face… I find it shameful that opposing fans can point to us and say, “look at these people! they’re not even cheering for their team?!”

Watching Thursday’s home-opener against Pittsburgh on TV: Rogers Arena was downright eerie to me… it seemed like, for 2 periods, 18,000 zombies were sitting there.. there was no energy from the fans..

Has Vancouver become too ‘hoighty-toighty’ of a city to cheer and find optimism?

Have some of us actually gotten to the point of feeling so sorry for ourselves that we feel entitled to a championship team? That we, fans, deserve a Stanley Cup? That this team is not worthy of our support despite all that it’s accomplished?

Have the Aquillinis done such a wonderful job of owning the team and finding the right people to manage and put competitive teams in Vancouver almost consistantly since 2001, that it actually is working against the team because we, fans, have been spoiled?

Lest we forget the 80′s when the Canucks logo on every team’s schedule meant an easy 2 points….

Apologies for my digression there… but c’mon Vancouver… we’ve got one of the best teams in the NHL representing our awesome city, let’s appreciate it…

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BS

October 11, 2011

Really, You want to have Burrows fighting. Ever played the game? You dont have your skilled guys in fights and you dont have your best Dmen in fights. You do have a guy sitting on the end of the bench whose job is to play 5-10 shifts a game and hit and intimidate or fight anybody that steps out of line.
The fact that people live here doesnt mean we have to be fans. Perhaps many of us favor teams with some grit and desire to do what it takes to win. The canucks dont have that and dont do that. Apparently you are what most would call a homer. That is someone so blinded by their team they are unable to critically assess their strengths and weaknesses.
By the way the fan energy at the home game matched the play of the canucks – flat.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

Here’s a strength: the Canucks were good enough last season to go to game 7 of the Stanley Cup Final. They lost because they couldn’t score on Tim Thomas, not because they didn’t have a goon to play 5 minutes a night and fight the opposition’s goon. You’re falling too easily into a false narrative.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BS

October 11, 2011

Kind of hard for your top players to even see the net never mind get one by the goalie when his eyes are swollen shut from taking punches to the head because the guy on the other team felt like it and knew nobody was going to help. Yes Thomas played terrific and was a huge factor but if your top players are too intimidated to go to the places you score from you only beat yourself.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

If you choose to see it that way, fine. It doesn’t square with what we saw on the ice (the Canucks, including the Sedins, were constantly in the “dirty areas” of the ice) nor the scoring chance data put together by third party bloggers that showed the Sedins dominating on chances but unable to put the puck past Thomas. So, it doesn’t square with the facts, but continue to believe what you will.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BeCanucks

October 11, 2011

the power of narratives…
Is it so dishonorable to lose against the goalie who posted the best recorded S% in the playoffs? Don’t get me wrong, I would like to smash Marchand face repeatedly, too. But that’s not the reason we lost.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

peanutflower

October 11, 2011

Well, I think that watching the game on TV doesn’t really give an indicator at all of what the crowd was like. they really tone down the crowd noise during the broadcasts. So unless you were there and saw and heard it first hand it isn’t really a valid criticism. At least Vancouver fills seats. THere were plenty of empty lower bowl seats at the CBJ game.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Ntat

October 11, 2011

I have to agree…..even the Jets crowd was really muffled at some points in their home opener because CBC would rather you hear Healy with perfect clarity than have you feel the rumble of the crowd.
Van isn’t really a chanty crowd anyways, but we’re one of the most obsessed fanbases. Just not so vocal as other places.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BS

October 11, 2011

I dont know how the writer can claim the canucks dont lack toughness. They are the easiest team in the league to push around and nobody does anything because “we’ll be on the powerplay”. Its early in the season and they are picking up right where they left off – leaving their top producer to fight his own battles. Perhaps the writer isnt old enough to remember that nobody would take liberties with Gretzky when he was on the oilers. Why? Dave Semenko. You touched Gretz and cement was on you. He toned it down by playoff time or should I say there was no need for him to keep fighting come playoff time because everyone knew the consequences. This is the exact time of year when you want to send the message to others that there will be consequences rather than waiting until the playoffs when you cant do anything because every goal is important. The Canucks will make the playoffs standing on their head and blind folded. They need to ensure the key guys are healthy when playoffs roll around. They wont be given the way the canucks play. Send a few guys into the opposition bench, pay the fine and send the message.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

Different era. You send a goon out these days to take on a dirt player and you’ll get fines, suspensions, and an uproar in the media. Goons do one thing these days: fight other goons. And that accomplishes nothing.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BS

October 11, 2011

So what! Its not like you have a skilled player getting suspended. Fines can easily be paid given the canucks revenue and the fact the fines are meaningless compared to the revenue. Its only 2 games in to the season and the entire league knows you can run the sedins without consequence. Watch it happen. From a business standpoint I’d gladly pay a $250,000 fine to have a sedin or 2 out for the year even if it means number 18 on our depth chart is gone for 20 games. Please be sure to shut the barn door after the last horse has escaped or in this case when the sedins are out for the year.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Lynsey

October 11, 2011

Great article Daniel. I agree with your sentiments (and the Sedins said as much). It was their job to make the Bruins pay on the PP for their behavior. Thomas was the problem, not the Canucks toughness. I praise Juice and Volpatti for being smart and not pulling a J.F. Jaques move.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

J21

October 11, 2011

Good write-up. I think people seriously overestimate how much of a “deterrent” the boring post-hit hugging match actually is.

Let’s say Methot takes the fight invitation. (1) How does this uninjure Henrik? (2) Does this really prevent it from happening again against another team? Many dangerous hits are accidents anyway. (3) Does it help win the game? (4) No matter who wins the fight, or if Methot fights back or turtles or whatever, what is different from this point on? The Sedins are now magically immune from cheapshots because a minor scrap once occurred with one Blue Jacket?

The only real act of revenge that could genuinely scare someone playing in the NHL would result in a long suspension. A hockey fight — which many of the same critics claim is so mundane that it is literally “part of the game” — does not do it.

When the Canucks “respond,” they take penalties and get criticized for losing their cool and playing into the opponent’s hands. When the Canucks don’t “respond” they get criticized for getting pushed around and being gutless.

Does any other team get this kind of treatment? Does anyone still cherry-pick examples from, like, the 2007 playoffs when analyzing the Flyerses or Starses of the world?

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

Now I’m fine with the post-incident fight. I think there’s a place for it and I think it may have a deterring effect. But there was no one on the ice who could take up that role and there’s no on the ice that you would remove in order to have a fighter. The Canucks have fighters; they just don’t play on a line with the Sedins because that would be counter-productive.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Geoff

October 11, 2011

I for one think the hit was handled well by both the Canucks and the refs. It was only a two minute penalty (can’t believe people were calling for a suspesion) not like Metoth threw an elbow or charged in, he just made a bit more contact then he should have when Hank had his back to him, 2 mins lets move on.

Comparing this and the SCF is a joke, for one we scored 8 goals in 7 games not like a couple of goons would have filled the net behind Thomas. And the cheap shots in the SCF almost all happened after the whistle or when the Bruins had a large lead, its not the Canucks job to keep the game in hand at that point, it is the officials and they clearly failed to do their job last year.

I really hoped that once hockey came back people would get excited for this season and not try as hard they can to hold on to the hurt and disappointment over the fact we only won 15 playoff games last year.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

I pretty much agree with this. There could have been a response, but there wasn’t, and that’s okay. The Canucks won the game with a powerplay goal, which is sufficient. There’s no need to compare it to the playoffs last year, but that’s the comparison that was immediately made and I thought it needed a response.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Ntat

October 11, 2011

The fact that Bieksa and Volpatti tried to respond, but were rebuffed, is enough for me. I don’t want anyone hunting someone down, ala Bertuzzi.

Methot is the one who should be feeling the heat, for making a dirty play and then not facing up to it with a fight. As has already been said, a lack of scoring killed us in the SCF, bottom line. No comparison…just lazy writing by journalists.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Brian Burke

October 11, 2011

Perception is reality and the perception around the league is that the Canucks are gutless. This is game two of the regular season, not the post season. Volpatti shouldn’t have asked Methot to fight. He should of went out there and hammered him and if he got a 3 or 4 game suspension, so what. It wouldn’t hurt the team and it would send a message around the league that if you take out one of our high end guys, you will pay.
The Canucks brass have to understand that the playoff rules are different and no matter what rhetoric they use about tougher rules the fact is that they change the rules in the playoffs to allow the type of garbage that Boston was doing last year. So if you can’t beat them, join them.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Greg

October 11, 2011

I bet your article would be entirely different if Henrik was on the IR for 6 mos with a vertebral fracture and nobody did a damn thing…we’re just lucky he came back

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

BeCanucks

October 11, 2011

If the hit was enough to injure Henrik for 6 month, do you really think that fighting Methot after is going to change anything?
Thorton was on the ice when Cooke probably ended Savard career, did it change anything for him? Nope. Thought so.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The Olde Coot

October 11, 2011

When Hank was hit I know methought
That Methot needs to take a shot
But now I hear he would not fight
And went unscathed throughout the night

So more cheap shots we can expect
From those who clearly lack respect
For other players on the ice
Simply because we are too nice

We think we’ll make the bullies pay
By scoring on the power play
And thus it is we’ll put to shame
The ones who will not play the game

When Henry’s hurt and cannot skate
Will anyone retaliate

The Olde Coot

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

madwag

October 11, 2011

danielson

A great posting generating a fine discussion of the issue! Valid points made by you and all those who responded both pro and con.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Dane

October 11, 2011

How many regular season games has Henrik played in a row? How many similar hits does he and Daniel take during a season? And Canucks lack toughness? I must be watching a different team.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Ntat

October 11, 2011

Henrik’s comments after the game were interesting. Saying that he was playing really poorly before the hit, and it should have woken him up, and he played poorly afterward. Guy gets boarded and he just wants to talk about how he sucked?

This is why the ‘Sedin sisters’ comments drive me nuts. Anyone who follows the team knows that the Sedins, while not fighters, are tough.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

peanutflower

October 11, 2011

Personally I’m fine with the article. It does say what I’ve always thought, for what that’s worth. The Sedins don’t have a McSorley or a Semenko, and I’m fine with that too. I prefer to watch Canuck-style hockey than retribution-style hockey. Bieksa was right on — not one of us is privy to what the players say to each other on the bench, and I bet Henrik did not sit there and whine about no one standing up for him. He’s a man, he and his brother are pretty tough guys — they have to be given all the abuse they take. It’s just not their style. If anyone can seriously say they’d be glad if the Sedins were less skilled but better fighters I’d say they need their heads examined. Burrows clearly would have had a brouhaha with Methot but wisely was prevented from doing so. I’m real glad my team doesn’t go after players after the fact a la JF Jacques. I like my team to play the way they do. I don’t give rats ass if they don’t fight just because everyone else seems to think they should, and brands them as soft and chicken because they don’t. They have enough grit on the team this year to take care of situations that REALLY need to be taken care of, but hopefully they’ll employ that grit when necessary and not just for the sake of it.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Kate

October 11, 2011

I don’t know why I look around on the CDC boards, but thankfully I came here after! I don’t get why everyone is bitching so much about the “lack of response” Yes Burrows was kept away from Methot but he jumped in there right away, I mean I know he’s not a big fighter but I would call that a response of some sort, it’s not like all the players stood around doing nothing, they were clearly pissed. We’re lucky the Sedins like playing here so much, some of the fans and media are so stupid, it’s the playoffs all over again, if they do get angry and defend themselves (Daniel vs chicago 2009?) they’ve “lost composure”. Then if they don’t stand up for themselves (Daniel and Marchand) they’re “felines”. Jesus what do people want from them!? We don’t know what is said in the locker room, or on the ice…until Bieksa kindly fills us in! Plus this game, the canucks way worked, they responded by winning! Anyways end rant, thanks for a good article!

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

J21

October 12, 2011

I think the non-Vancouver media is even worse in its double-standard. I don’t understand how anyone could dislike the Sedins as players, beyond the fact that they do a lot of damage to one’s own favorite team. And yet the Canadian and U.S. hockey public have such a huge amount of scorn for them and hold them to standards that the Kanes and Toewses never have to deal with.

It’s xenophobia, plain and simple. There’s no other accounting for it.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Raj

October 11, 2011

Most people don’t realize how tough the sedins really are, they take hits to make plays, and are very hard to knock off pucks. They dont get injured easilly, and if they do, they don’t show it. There is no need for goons, when you have a few players who can fight when needed. (weise, bieksa, volpatti etc)

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

akidd

October 11, 2011

yes, a very good article, well-reasoned and articulated.

It all follows very nicely but I contest one point, that winning the second game of the year is so important that it is not worth a 2 minute instigator penalty. after what happened last year it would be worth a ten-game suspension for coming off the bench. volpatti should not have taken ‘no’ for an answer.

being tactical and pragmatic is all fine and dandy but this is about a more elusive trait…integrity.

the canucks should be able to cruise to the nw crown.they could take a hundred instigator penalties and still probably finish in the 3-spot. they need to show that they won’t be walked all over…anymore. the self-respect they’ll gain by standing up for themselves and each other will take them over the top a lot more surely than 2 points in the first week of the season.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

I’m just not sure what that would have accomplished. Would the other teams in the league really see the fight and think, “Oh, I guess we better not target the Sedins physically.” I just don’t think that’s a realistic point of view. I mean, I understand what you’re saying and I don’t completely disagree, but like Bieksa and Volpatti were saying, it’s a long season and they have Methot’s number now. An instigator penalty or a suspension doesn’t really help anything. And as much as it is just the second game of the season, these wins contribute to the standings just like the wins at the end of the season.

As for integrity and self-respect, it doesn’t seem like those are qualities that are particularly lacking in the Canucks dressing room. From a different point of view, the Canucks’ restraint and self-control could be seen as signs of integrity and self-respect rather than signs that those attributes are missing.

Still, I understand what you’re saying. What happens, however, if Volpatti drops the gloves and Methot does not? Should Volpatti sucker punch the guy? Do the Canucks gain or lose respect in this circumstance. Normally, players who sucker punch others are seen in a worse light.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

akidd

October 11, 2011

hi daniel, thanks for the response. actually I’d be perfectly happy to watch a pure skill game. i’d be fine with a fighting ban as well as lengthy suspensions for any attempt to injure. i don’t think that hockey players shoulld feel like they should define their manhood by fighting or toughness. it should be good enough to simply play the game well.

but that league doesn’t exist. if shannahan isn’t going to act on an obvious intent to injure then some other course of action to protect players needs to be taken. i don’t like the playground rules either but if you keep getting punched in the head at recess every day eventually even your peace-loving friends are going to lose respect for you. it seems like human nature that viscerally we respect those who stand up for themselves no matter how pacifist a stance we take intellectually.

We all saw what happened in the finals when the refs put away their whistles. it was like an official declaration that the league prefers playground rules to determine its champions. so if the Canucks want to skate around in their jockstraps like at the end of “Slapshot” i can respect that. If winning the cup itself isn’t a high enough goal but must be combined with a demonstration of pacifist ethics from the highmoral ground then i can get behind that too. If they want to lead us to a more civil place as a society then i think that’s great.

but if they just want to play in the league as it is and win its championship as soon as possible I believe they need to establish that they won’t be beaten them up every recess.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 11, 2011

I think this is a fair and reasonable response. But even on the playground, you need to pick your time and place carefully.

Of course, if the Canucks can “show us a better way” and win the Cup without dragging their knuckles, that would be ideal, but it’s fair to be pragmatic.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

akidd

October 11, 2011

and i need to establish that i won’t click ‘submit’ without proof-reading first.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Drew

October 11, 2011

Sedin may not be Swedish for “punch or headlock me in a scrum”, but I’m pretty sure it’s Swedish for “one of the most honest players in the game”. Even when he’s on the receiving end of a brutal hit.

Good for him for watching the video and saying that he didn’t think it was as bad as he did when he got hit. He could have easily been up in arms, but instead watched the hit and noticed, as well as admited (not the same thing as noticing), that Methot let up a little bit before the hit.

I still think there should have been a bit more from the league on this one, but good for Sedin for sticking to his principles of honesty.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

latetotheparty

October 12, 2011

For people who played hockey, the answer to this is simple. The next time Jeff Carter is on the ice, Volpatti runs his head through the glass. Who cares about retribution with Methot? He is a nobody. If you run our star, then we run your star. That’s the same way they do it in baseball. All star players hate when their own pitcher takes a head shot at the other teams players, because they know they are the one to recieve payback. If the Canucks would start cheap shotting star players everytime someone cheap shots the Sedins, this stuff will end (or escalate, but I am guessing end). Point is, you don’t need an enforcer to do this, but it would help.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 12, 2011

And if it escalates instead? What then? Or what if Carter gets a severe concussion or, worse, a broken neck? What kind of solution is that?

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

latetotheparty

October 12, 2011

Then nobody screws with the Canucks anymore, and the Sedins can fill the net with pucks. Sounds like a pretty damn good solution to me.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

latetotheparty

October 12, 2011

Go talk to any enforcer in the league. They will explain to you how the game works.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 12, 2011

So I should ask the enforcers if their job is necessary? Can I just skip that step because their answer will be blatantly obvious?

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Latetotheparty

October 12, 2011

No I said ask them how to enforce the game. You seem to think that if Volpatti and Bieska take Methot’s number they can settle the score later. That is not how it works. Ask any enforcer how to settle the score and will tell by intimidating the other team’s top player. Just about any player can do that, but an enforcer can back it up, and the team can absorb their suspension or broken finger sustained from the ensuing fight better than they can losing a skilled player. So yes enforcers are nice but not essentially necessary. You never saw Probert run another team’s top player. He wasn’t scared somebody would beat him up over it. He knew somebody would take out Yzerman if he did.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 12, 2011

Again, you said this in response to the idea of Jeff Carter having a broken neck. So…I’m just not sure that’s really a sane point of view.

I don’t disagree with the idea of hounding the opposition’s top players and playing a more physical game against them if the opposition starts throwing some cheap shots at your stars, but the times have changed, friend. The type of retaliation you cheered on is repugnant and will lose a team respect rather than earn it.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Latetotheparty

October 12, 2011

Your the one who said break his neck. Let’s use a little common sense. All I said was retaliate against their top players. Nobody is advocating career or life threatening injjuries. Is the best argument you have to deflect to something ridiculous that you interjected into the debate, but now accuse me of saying?

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Daniel Wagner

October 12, 2011

…

All I’m saying is that retaliation can be a dangerous road to go down. When I asked what happens if this retaliation results in a player getting a severe concussion or a broken neck, you said that “Sounds like a pretty damn good solution to me.” That’s what I was responding to afterwards. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand why breaking a player’s neck sounds like a good solution to you. Those words were already in your mouth.

If that doesn’t sound like a good solution to you, great. Then we’re back on even, sane footing and can continue this discussion reasonably.

VN:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Latetotheparty

October 12, 2011

It was a facetious comment in response to a ridiculous comment. How many broken necks do you see in the NHL? I think we are both arguing for the same thing here. The Canucks need to do a better job protecting their star players. Call it what you want. The Golden Rule, The Code, an eye for an eye, but if you leave our star players alone, we will leave yours alone. Hockey is a violent game, and intimidation plays a big part of it. So I am sorry, but retaliation is also a big part of the game whether you admit it or not. And nobody in their right mind condones or hopes for serious injuries. There are plenty of avenues for retribution that don’t result in that.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Chuck

October 12, 2011

Everyone that says it’s smart not to retaliate will change their tunes when one of their stars goes on the IR from one of these cheap shot artists.

Go after one of their stars if they want to cheap shot yours. It just can’t be ignored. It’s a coaches tactic that has to be countered.

VA:F [1.9.16_1159]

Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Search

It's the home stretch of the season and the Canucks are in a precarious position, with both the Calgary Flames and Los Angeles Kings right behind them in the playoff race. In an ideal world, the Kings would miss the playoffs entirely and the Canucks would face the Flames in the first round, but it's possible the Canucks could face the Kings or miss […]

Chris Tanev is one of the best of the new breed of defensive defencemen, who cannot possibly be described as "stay-at-home." This season he has proven that he is a top pairing defenceman capable of elevating the play of everyone around him and the Canucks rewarded him with a five-year, $22.25 million contract. […]

Both times the Canucks have worn their throwback Vancouver Millionaires jerseys, they have suffered embarrassing losses, including the stain of the 2014 Heritage Classic. And yet, the Canucks will be wearing them again next week, this time honouring the 100th anniversary of the Millionaires' Stanley Cup victory. […]

Arguably the most devastating injury of the Canucks' season was to Chris Tanev, whose steadying presence on the top pairing with Alex Edler has been sorely missed. Thankfully, he is returning to the lineup and should make a significant impact as the Canucks push to make the playoffs. […]